Adherence to Bering Strait Vessel Routing Measures in 2019
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Adherence to Bering Strait Vessel Routing Measures in 2019 April 2020 Sierra Fletcher, Dr. Bretwood Higman, Alisha Chartier, and Tim Robertson Nuka Research and Planning Group LLC P.O. Box 175, Seldovia, AK 99663 10 Samoset St., Plymouth, MA 02360 nukaresearch.com Adherence to Bering Strait Vessel Routing Measures in 2019 Executive Summary This white paper presents the results of a study of vessel movements in the Bering Sea and Bering Strait region from June to October 2019. The purpose of the study was to understand the extent to which vessels adhered to new International Maritime Organization (IMO) routing measures there. In the context of increasing ship traffic in the Arctic, the IMO adopted routing measures including recommended routes, precautionary areas, and areas to be avoided (ATBAs) in the Bering Strait and Bering Sea region. The measures are all voluntary, as is common for such measures globally, and were not intended to significantly alter vessel activity in the area or disrupt local trade or services. The first goal of the proposed recommended routes and precautionary areas was to “organize the streams of ships passing the Bering Strait and along United States and Russian coasts in the Bering Sea” (USCG, 2017b). This reflected the overall purpose of the routes and context in the region regarding the current and growing potential for transiting traffic to and from the Arctic. This analysis used Automatic Identification System (AIS) data transmitted by vessels according to international requirements. Vessels carrying AIS transmitters send regular signals regarding their location and heading, with some limited vessel characteristics. Additional research was conducted regarding vessel particulars where needed, and the data signals compiled to portray vessel tracks. These tracks were used to make maps and examine vessel movements, individually or grouped by type. This paper provides a first review of the extent to which vessels adhered to the measures in 2019, the first shipping season after the measures took effect. It found that transiting ships were generally adhering to the routing measures as a whole. This included bulk carriers, LNG/LPG tankers, and some other cargo and tanker traffic that appeared to be moving through the study area rather than trading there. In cases in which cargo vessels and tankers were going off the recommended two-way routes or into an ATBA, many times it appears likely based on general knowledge of vessel activity in the region that they were calling at a port or “lightering” (transferring) fuel to barges. On the other hand, passenger vessels, tugs, and fishing vessels— all of which were engaged in local trade or activities—generally did not follow the IMO routing measures and would not necessarily be expected to do so. Acknowledgments This paper was researched and written by Sierra Fletcher, Dr. Bretwood Higman, Alisha Chartier, and Tim Robertson of Nuka Research and Planning Group LLC. Special thanks to the experts who reviewed this white paper, including Gregory Silber, principal scientist, Smultea Environmental Sciences. Although they reviewed various drafts and the paper’s findings, neither they nor their organizations necessarily endorse the conclusions. This study was commissioned by The Pew Charitable Trusts. Pew is not responsible for errors within and does not necessarily endorse the opinions and conclusions herein. Adherence to Bering Strait Vessel Routing Measures in 2019 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1 2 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................1 2.1 IMO ROUTING MEASURES ........................................................................................................1 2.2 BERING STRAIT ROUTING MEASURES .......................................................................................2 3 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................5 3.1 DATA ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................5 3.2 ANALYZING ADHERENCE TO ROUTING MEASURES ....................................................................6 3.2.1 EVALUATING ADHERENCE TO OTHER ATBAS .........................................................................7 3.2.2 APPROACH USED FOR BERING STRAIT ANALYSIS ...................................................................8 4 RESULTS ...............................................................................................................................9 4.1 OVERVIEW OF ADHERENCE TO ROUTES BY VESSEL TYPE ....................................................... 11 4.1.1 FISHING VESSELS................................................................................................................. 11 4.1.2 TUGS ................................................................................................................................... 13 4.1.3 PASSENGER VESSELS .......................................................................................................... 16 4.1.4 CARGO VESSELS.................................................................................................................. 18 4.1.5 TANKERS.............................................................................................................................. 22 4.1.6 OTHER VESSELS .................................................................................................................. 24 4.2 VESSEL MOVEMENTS IN PROPOSED ATBAS........................................................................... 26 5 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................ 27 6 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 28 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................... 29 APPENDIX A—DATA SOURCES, PROCESSING, AND LIMIT AT IONS ................................... 31 ENDNOTES ……………………………………………………………………………………………..35 Adherence to Bering Strait Vessel Routing Measures in 2019 April 2020 1 Introduction The IMO adopted voluntary vessel routing measures for the Bering Sea and Bering Strait region that went into effect in December 2018. This paper discusses the extent to which vessels adhered to the recommended routes and areas to be avoided from June to October 2019, the first shipping season after the measures took effect. This paper is not a comprehensive analysis of vessel traffic in the area but is intended to be a first review of how vessels observed the new measures. 2 Background It is widely recognized that shipping activity is increasing in the Arctic as sea ice retreats, allowing for increases in vessel traffic associated with tourism, cargo, and resource extraction activities generally (Arctic Council, 2009; USCG, 2016a; CMTS, 2019). This includes the Bering Sea and Bering Strait areas (CMTS, 2019). Vessel traffic in the Bering Sea/Strait is associated with transits to and from the Arctic as well as mining, fishing, and serving communities on both the U.S. and Russian sides within the region (Fletcher and Robertson, 2016). 2.1 IMO Routing Measures The IMO is a United Nations agency made up of member states (countries). Among many other functions, the IMO adopts international routing measures for certain vessels. These measures are adopted under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) (IMO, 2020). IMO-approved vessel routing measures may include traffic separation schemes, two-way routes, recommended tracks, ATBAs, inshore traffic zones, roundabouts, precautionary areas, deep-water routes, and archipelagic sea lanes, depending on the location and risk. Although routing measures may be mandatory or voluntary, most are voluntary (IMO, 2019). Three types of voluntary routing measures are in place in the Bering Strait for ships of 400 gross tons (GT) and larger (these are discussed further in Section 2.2): 1 Nuka Research and Planning Group LLC Adherence to Bering Strait Vessel Routing Measures in 2019 • Two-way route: A route within defined limits “The purpose of ships’ routeing [sic] is to inside which two-way traffic is established, improve the safety of navigation in aimed at providing safe passage of ships converging areas and in areas where the through waters where navigation is difficult or density of traffic is great or where dangerous. freedom of movement of shipping is inhibited. … Ships’ routeing [sic] may • Precautionary area: An area within defined also be used for the purpose of limits where ships must take particular caution. preventing or reducing the risk of The direction of traffic flow is sometimes pollution or other damage to the marine recommended, though this is not the case in environment caused by ships colliding or the Bering Sea/Strait. grounding or anchoring in or near environmentally sensitive areas.” • Area to be avoided: An area that all or some ships are encouraged to avoid because it is —General Provision on Ships’ Routeing particularly hazardous for navigation or it is (IMO, 2019) particularly important to avoid casualties there (IMO, 2019). When a member state proposes routing measures to the IMO, it must